Who hasn't laughed over Michael Skelly's recent news show commentator appearances where he's tried to spin his projects as part of Trump's great (really great, believe me, the greatest of all time, it will be great) infrastructure plan?

Well, laugh some more, little Schadenfreuders,* because not only does Trump's plan not include a project list, it actively neuters Section 1222 of the Energy Policy Act. For years, Clean Line has used Section 1222 as its trump card (heh, the jokes just won't stop here) to threaten states with losing jurisdiction over its projects if they fail to approve them. Clean Line even went to far as to go all the way with the DOE on its Plains & Eastern project, spending millions of dollars to secure the "participation" of one of DOE's federal power marketers in that project, with the idea that would allow federal eminent domain authority where Arkansas failed to grant it.

SWPA is the federal power marketer that is supposed to "participate" in the Plains & Eastern project, and use its federal eminent domain authority to condemn and take property in Arkansas for transmission right of way. In order to do that, SWPA must "own" the right of way and the project assets in Arkansas.

The Secretary, acting through WAPA or SWPA, or both, may design, develop, construct, operate, maintain, or own, or participate with other entities in designing, developing, constructing, operating, maintaining, or owning, a new electric power transmission facility and related facilities (“Project”) located within any State in which WAPA or SWPA operates...

Without WAPA and SWPA owning transmission facilities, any eminent domain authority the DOE currently thinks Section 1222 authorizes collapses. Once PMA transmission assets are no longer held by the federal government, federal eminent domain authority ceases.

Is that what you thought being on some fake infrastructure list was going to buy you, Michael Skelly? Seems to me that Trump's infrastructure plan only further complicates Plains & Eastern. Who would want to sign a contract to purchase capacity on a non-existent transmission project that is in danger of being sold to the highest bidder? Trump's plan to sell PMA transmission assets makes Plains & Eastern more risky and uncertain than ever!

But, the idea to sell PMA transmission is unlikely to happen. However, it could, hypothetically speaking. The uncertainty is likely to stall PMA transmission plans for the foreseeable future. It's not like the idea to divest PMA assets is new. It's been floated several times in the past and been defeated. Already, legislators and users of PMA transmission are up in arms about the proposal, and for good reason. It's a really stupid idea.

But it's Trump's really great idea. And it's going to cripple any PMA transmission projects for now.

I hope Clean Line didn't actually think getting on a list was going to solve its problems, or else someone is going to be crying himself to sleep tonight. Boo. Flipping. Hoo.

Third time's the charm for Iowans battling the Rock Island Clean Line merchant transmission project. The Preservation of Rural Iowa Alliance has been working with legislators for the past three years to put meaningful legislation in place that would release them from the threat of eminent domain taking of their property by an overhead merchant transmission project.

Today is a day to celebrate!! It is a historic day for property rights!

Governor Branstad signed a bill into law forbidding merchant high voltage transmission lines such as RICL from having condemnation power to take private property by eminent domain. Click here to read Senate File 516: an Act relating to state and local finances by making appropriations providing for legal and regulatory responsibilities, concerning taxation, and providing for other properly related matters, and including effective date and retroactive applicability provisions. This bill passed the Iowa House on April 21, 55-39 and the Iowa Senate on April 21, 27-13. Read the lanquage related to merchant transmission lines beginning on page 18 of the bill.​This means that even if RICL decides to try and come back into Iowa they CANNOT take your property by use of eminent domain. This is a huge win.

A very dedicated and amazing board of directors donated their time, energy and talents to continue this mission for nearly 4 years.​Many people across Iowa and outside the state spent endless volunteer hours and contributed money to assist PRIA legislators in making this possible.​We need to also remember the leaders in private property rights in other states who provided leadership and guidance as they continue their fight!

The legislation prevents the use of eminent domain for overhead merchant transmission lines in the state of Iowa. If Clean Line wants to construct its private purpose transmission line across the state, it's going to have to purchase easements in a free market, where the true cost of hosting a ginormous transmission line for the use of other states will be realized.

Third time was not the charm for RICL though. The company has tried multiple times to get the Iowa Utilities Board to grant it public utility status and eminent domain authority ahead of any actual application for the project. The IUB stood firm, however, and refused to allow a birfucation of its transmission application process that would coerce landowners to grant easements before the project application was even filed. RICL tried to do this because filing requirements in Iowa require the company to produce a packet of information at the time of filing for each property it may take via eminent domain. RICL complained that was too expensive, and too difficult, and wanted eminent domain authority to wield against landowners so that they would grant easements before application, saving RICL the trouble of creating the information packet for the majority of the properties.

Iowans refused to make it that easy for RICL. They did something amazing instead... they stood together and refused to negotiate easements with RICL. To stand together against a company waving their checkbook around is something that doesn't happen every time. Iowans demonstrated the power of community by sticking together. And they demonstrated backbone by continuing their fight, both at the IUB and in the legislature. RICL was never about providing electricity to Iowa. It was a one-way highway to ship electricity out of state for private profit. That's not something that should be granted eminent domain authority.

And this is precisely the argument heard by the Illinois Supreme Court this week. Why RICL continued trying to reverse the appeals court's decision to vacate their permit granted by the Illinois Commerce Commission, even after they were shut out of Iowa where their project was planned to begin, is anyone's guess. Pretty pointless, but so is everything Clean Line does anymore.

A while ago, I compared Clean Line's permitting debacle to a game of whack-a-mole. Every time the company wacked a mole and received a permit, more moles popped up as impediments to its projects. And everyone knows how a game of whack-a-mole speeds up at the end, where it's impossible to whack all the moles that pop up, and then you lose. Clean Line's whack-a-mole game is running double time. Clean Line was shut out of Iowa before Illinois even heard its appeal. What now, Clean Line? What now? RICL needs to be re-routed to another state, or abandoned altogether. The project is dead. Please just admit that.

Congratulations to PRIA and the Iowans who came together and fought so hard to protect their communities from out-of-state profiteers! They are an example to emulate in other transmission battles.

Landowner opponents of the Rock Island Clean Line transmission project hoped that the Supreme Court oral argument yesterday would be the last they will see of Clean Line Energy Partners. They could be right.

Clean Line arrived overly confident, conflating the Court's desire to hear the case with a desire to reverse the decision of the Third District Appellate Court.

But softball questions and encouraging smiles were not to be had from the Supreme Court Justices yesterday. The Justices asked a plethora of questions regarding how RICL could legally be for "public use."

In response they got a whole bunch of complicated explanations on physics, Open Access Transmission Tariffs, and the idea that FERC's rules on a non-discriminatory auction process satisfied Illinois law regarding a utility's non-discriminatory service to the public. It's quite unfortunate for RICL that they decided the ICC's attorney should go first with his argument that the ICC is entitled to deference in how it interpreted Illinois law. The Justices didn't seem too interested in that, instead asking Matthew Harvey questions about how RICL could legally be a public utility. Poor Mr. Harvey... his answers did not satisfy RICL's bevy of attorneys in the first few rows and drew skeptical faces and negative headshakes from them. I was afraid that if Owen McBride's eyebrows knitted themselves any closer together whether he'd go cross-eyed. Despite this superior attitude from RICL, I can't say RICL's attorney fared any better before the judges than Mr. Harvey. RICL's attorney met the justices' questions with complicated circular answers and lots of smoke and mirrors that failed to shed any light on the issue.

When asked by a Justice if RICL's desire to be a public utility was for the sole purpose of acquiring eminent domain authority, RICL's counsel chose to deny it and blame the ICC for telling them they had to be a public utility. Really, now? I'm thinking that a straight up admission of how hard it is to build transmission without eminent domain authority would have served them much better than a ridiculous story nobody believed.

The appellees lead off with a strong argument defining "public use" that managed to answer all the Justices' questions that had remained basically unanswered after the appellants had their say. Matthew Price, representing Com Ed, was positively brilliant compared to the bombastic, uninspired arguments of the ICC and RICL. He explained public use so simply that it could be understood by anyone. Public use is a utility's obligation to serve all who want service. A public utility doesn't get to choose which customers it will serve in order to maximize its profit. RICL will pick and choose its customers in a way that maximizes its profits. A public utility must serve everyone, not just allow them to bid for service, or use service available when no one else is using it.

Mr. Price made it clear as a bell. And the Justices pretty much stopped asking the questions about public use, so I guess their questions were answered by Mr. Price. It's pretty clear to me that the merchant transmission business model doesn't comport with Illinois law. Price said something about a FERC-land determination of non-discrimination does not satisfy a determination in the Land of Lincoln. Right... because FERC is only looking at whether the auction process is fair. It does not concern itself with whether the merchant transmission company is discriminating against members of the public by only providing service to select customers. Just because FERC approves it does not mean it comports with Illinois law.

Mr. Price brought up the issue of RICL's refusal to expand capacity on its line if it gets more requests for service than it can provide. RICL claims it has to stick with the original plan because that's the project in its application. Maybe it could build another line if it had multiple requests, but why bother with that if it can increase its profits by limiting available capacity?

Price brought up the idea that RICL could pro-rate its available capacity at the auction, with each bidder receiving a share, instead of trying to maximize its profits by selling only to the highest bidders. And then the most humorous thing happened... in rebuttal, RICL's counsel decided it could pro-rate its capacity to auction bidders. I've never heard anything about this from RICL before, and I'm pretty sure it wasn't in their FERC application for negotiated rate authority. Nor was it in the Order of the ICC granting the CPCN. So now the Court is supposed to believe RICL has fundamentally altered its auction process on a whim? Way to admit you're wrong, RICL!

The ILA presented a short, cogent argument about how eminent domain is basically procedural once a CPCN is issued. And got snotty looks and smirks from the RICL attorneys for their trouble, along with an arrogant rebuttal that attempted to minimize and disparage landowner concerns. RICL showed the Court that it doesn't give any consideration whatsoever to the landowners it wants to get into perpetual easement partnerships with.

So, now we wait for the Court to issue its opinion. Some people say that you can tell which way a court is leaning by the questions its judges ask during oral arguments. Hans Detweiler better not count his chickens before they hatch. He's no constitutional scholar. Commerce Clause. Heh.

During the Missouri Public Service Commission's hearing on the most recent Grain Belt Express application for a permit, much was made of a supposed power purchase contract between Missouri Joint Municipal Electric Utility Commission (MJMEUC) and Infinity Wind. In Rebuttal Testimony before the PSC, Infinity Wind's Matt Langley stated:

I am referring to a contract that was just entered into on January 23, 2017, between Infinity and MJMEUC. Because the contract is contingent upon the approval of the Grain Belt Express Project, many of the terms remain confidential, but what I can say is that it is a 20-year term fixed-price contract that provides for the purchase by MJMEUC of a minimum of 100 MW of capacity and energy per year from our Iron Star Wind Project, a maximum purchase of 300 MW per year, and a likely purchase amount of 200 MW per year.

So, if we believe MJMEUC is committed to purchase at least 100 MW (but more likely 200 MW) from Infinity's Iron Star Wind Project, and that the energy must be delivered to MJMEUC via the Grain Belt Express, then the construction and operation of Iron Star must be contingent upon Grain Belt being in operation.

The 400-megawatt Iron Star wind farm near Dodge City is in advanced development and likely will be built this year.

Even if the MO PSC approves Grain Belt Express this year, the soonest the project could be online is somewhere after 2020. And even that is a stretch, considering that GBE doesn't have near the amount of customers needed to finance its project.

So how is it that Infinity Wind will be building its 400 MW Iron Star project this year, when a committed customer that would purchase half the project's capacity cannot take delivery until sometime after 2020? Is Infinity Wind going to build the Iron Star project and let half of its turbines sit idle until sometime after 2020? Does Infinity Wind have another committed customer who promises to buy MJMEUC's share of the project, delivered over existing transmission lines, until GBE is built and MJMEUC can take delivery? Or is the MJMEUC contract simply a stunt designed to persuade Missouri regulators to approve GBE, and that Infinity Wind doesn't believe will actually come to fruition? Infinity Wind simply can't have it both ways. Either Infinity is going to build Iron Star and sell the full capacity to another customer, or Infinity is not going to build Iron Star, and forego the opportunity to make money from the project for many years. It just doesn't make sense.

In its Amicus brief at the Illinois Supreme Court (in the matter of Rock Island Clean Line's appeal of the Third District Appellate Court) Infinity Renewables stated

In sum, in the absence transmission certainty,with regard to both the existence of the physical line and the user fees, wind generation developers, such as Infinity, will not commit capital to develop new generation projects in areas that currently lack such access.

So Infinity will not tie up its money developing new generation until the transmission it plans to use for delivery to customers is physically online.

But yet, Infinity claims that its Iron Star project is in "advanced development" and will likely be built this year, even though Grain Belt Express has not been approved and can't possibly even deliver until sometime after 2020. "Advanced development" most likely indicates that Infinity has invested some capital in "developing" the project.

So, which is it, Infinity? Are you developing Iron Star for production and sale of generation without the existence of Grain Belt Express? Or are you committing capital to develop new generation without transmission certainty?

Or was Infinity's testimony to the Missouri Public Service Commission just a bunch of hot air? These contradictions just can't be reconciled. One of those Infinity Wind statements just isn't true. Which one do you think it is?

Remember when you ran for Congress as a Democrat? Although it was a decade ago, did that Democratic candidate running for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives ever think he'd end up pretending to be an expert on Fox News? I bet 2008 Michael Skelly thought Fox News was full of fame whores pretending to be "experts," and made up, fake news.

2008 Michael Skelly probably made fun of guys like 2017 Michael Skelly. Pretending to be an infrastructure expert. Pretending to be part of a Republican administration. Pretending that his project is shovel ready. Pretending that he's actually building things.

I'm pretty sure that's the last stop on the road to obscurity for you. Have a nice trip!

Whether you believe in the idea that building infrastructure will "make America great again" or not, one thing is clear: electric transmission projects don't belong on a federal infrastructure project list.

But electric transmission appeared on lists released earlier this year under the guise that the Trump administration created the lists. However, men touting themselves as infrastructure "experts" created those lists, so you'd think maybe they actually had some knowledge about different kinds of infrastructure, and the specific projects they added to their independently-created lists. Apparently the only criteria needed for inclusion on these lists was a desire to be on a list.

Turns out not only do those infrastructure "experts" not really know much at all about the projects they're pimping, but they fundamentally misunderstand the way electric transmission is permitted and paid for. A recent article in Marketplace tosses a bucket of cold water on the transmission infrastructure woody the "experts" have been sporting.

The Marketplace article highlights a dispute between two states over a flood diversion project in the Fargo, N.D., area. The project is touted as "shovel-ready" on the "expert's" list, but just a little digging for information by the reporter revealed that the project is embroiled in a gigantic controversy between states, and a federal lawsuit. Not "shovel-ready" by any stretch of the imagination. But it appears that what got that project on the list was someone lobbying for it... someone who wanted to pretend it was "shovel-ready" in order to get it on one of the "expert" lists, as if that would magically make the huge controversy disappear. It doesn't. It can't. And the "expert" showed his decided lack of expertise by failing to even take an independent look at the project with a quick google search. These projects got on lists at the request of their owners, and nobody cared to look past the information provided by the owner.

The "expert" also knows nothing about the Plains & Eastern Clean Line electric transmission project that appears on his list.

Slane acknowledged, though, he didn’t know about the legal dispute between Minnesota and North Dakota.

Other high-profile projects listed from around the country are entangled in legal and political problems, too.

A proposed high-power transmission line that would deliver wind energy from Oklahoma to several southeastern states is under fire. The federal government approved the line in 2016 despite objections from landowners and the Arkansas Congressional delegation.

Since then, several landowners have sued to stop the line and several members of Congress introduced legislation that would require projects to receive state approval. Officials representing the company believe the line will be approved.

That hardly makes this project "shovel-ready," either. Officials believe it will be approved? I thought Clean Line already thought the federal government "approved" their project? I thought Clean Line said their project didn't need state approval? But it looks like now Clean Line believes it can get state approval. Is that what Clean Line is saying? Or is that what the infrastructure "expert" is saying on Clean Line's behalf? Because that just doesn't make sense.

And you know what else? The Plains & Eastern Clean Line has no customers. It has no revenue. There's no need to build something that nobody is going to use. In fact, it's just not possible to do that, no matter how many lists this project gets put on.

Electric transmission is not like a highway, or an airport. Electric transmission is always paid for by its user. It's not a "free" highway that the public can use on a whim. Electric transmission is always built with private investor cash, in exchange for a return on equity. There are two distinctly different kinds of transmission projects.

The first kind is ordered by a regional transmission planner and cost allocated to a select group of electric ratepayers who will pay to use it. The ratepayers are forced to create the future regulated revenue stream. This kind of project's return on equity is set by regulators, who must approve the rates it charges in exchange for creating a captive ratepayer revenue stream. Investors receive a regulated rate of return paid by customers.

The second kind of transmission project is the kind these "experts" have included on their many lists. It's a merchant transmission project that has not been examined or ordered by a regional transmission planner. It has no captive ratepayers to create a future revenue stream. Instead, merchant transmission projects are the financial responsibility of their owners, who must create a future revenue stream from signed contracts with voluntary customers. This project's return on equity is created by the market. If there's a need for it, voluntary customers will set market price for its use, and the return for investors comes out of any profits it can earn through rates. A merchant project must have confirmed customers that create a revenue stream before it can be financed and built.

A transmission project, no matter which kind, must have a confirmed future revenue stream before investors will plunk their money down. Who invests without knowing how, if, or how much, return they will receive on their investment? Nobody, that's who. And that's another thing seriously wrong with the "expert" infrastructure list.

And private investors are not going to build the projects without a return on investment, which might come from tolls for a new road or higher utility rates for an energy project, for example.

Greg DiLoreto with the American Society of Civil Engineers says that difference is important.

“Financing infrastructure is not the funding of infrastructure,” he said. “Financing is access to capital to do that funding, but at the end of the day you have to have cold, hard cash to build these projects that need building…”

Because the infrastructure "experts" don't have a clue how electric transmission is built and paid for, they seem to think transmission is a good fit for their "shovel-ready" list. Only a transmission project with a guaranteed revenue stream is anywhere near "shovel-ready."

Clean Line has no customers for its projects. It has no revenue stream. Being on an infrastructure list does not create one. Being on an infrastructure list does not create captive customers.

These infrastructure "experts" are nothing more than uninformed clowns, but the real Bozos are the merchant transmission companies schmoozing and lobbying and wasting their money to get their loser projects on some list. List or no list, the Clean Line projects just aren't happening.

Cost impact is expected to be less than $1.40 a month for the average residential customer

Well, now how about that? "States farther east" building their own renewable generation, in their own backyard, and paying for it themselves. Bravo!

Sure looks cheaper than spending $10B on honkin' big new transmission lines to import "wind" from the Midwest.

And guess what?

The PSC said the two projects are expected to yield more than $1.8 billion of in-state spending. The agency says the projects are estimated to create nearly 9,700 new direct and indirect jobs and contribute $74 million in state tax revenues over 20 years.

The PSC's decision is contingent on approval by the federal government of the developers' site assessment plans, as well as construction and operations plans.

The plan includes a focus on developing port facilities in the Baltimore area and Ocean City. It calls for developers to invest at least $76 million in a steel fabrication plant in Maryland and at least $39.6 million for upgrades at Baltimore County's Tradepoint Atlantic shipyard, formerly Sparrows Point.

Commissioner Michael Richard said the wind farms will "enables us to meet our clean, renewable energy goals using energy generated within the state while conditioning our approval on holding project developers to their promises of creating jobs and spurring economic growth."

Economic development in Maryland, where the energy will be generated and consumed!

Sure beats the hell out of Clean Line Energy's plan to create economic development in Iowa and Kansas by building new terrestrial wind farms and ginormous electric transmission lines for thousands of miles that they expect Marylanders to use and pay for. Why would Maryland want to ship all its energy dollars to other states to create economic development somewhere else? Does that make sense, when local keeps it all in-state?

Have you ever noticed that the majority of Clean Line's media is full of glittering generalities, false bravado, and made-up facts? Does it look like the reporters responsible for those stories failed to balance their coverage with an opposing view, or to ask any relevant questions of Clean Line? Is it almost as if they simply re-wrote a Clean Line press release without vetting any of the information in it, doing any independent research, or simply engaging their brains?

Now we've created a handy-dandy tool for reporters on assignment to write about Clean Line, in the form of a fun and stimulating word game.

Pertinent Issues That Deserve Attention is chock full of helpful ideas. Think of it as your own personal Clean Line press kit.

Because Trump is so inclined to take his "plans" from The Huffington Post. Right.

This krappy opinion piece is so full of rhetorical buzzwords that a friend suggested we make a drinking game out of it, and other media in the same vein. Balkanized? Take a shot! Green? Take a shot! Resilient? Take a shot! Modernize? Take a shot! Infrastructure? Take a shot!

Drunk on the floor. All.The.Time.

As if glittering generalities are the basis for planning and building the greatest machine of modern times -- the electric transmission grid.

First of all, we need to recognize where krap like this comes from... it comes from the corporations and people who stand to make a profit from grid construction. It comes from environmental group lawyers who have no electrical engineering experience. And the worst part? These people know better! They know that the grid is planned and operated by federally monitored regional transmission and reliability organizations. Our grid is constantly expanded and modernized by experienced engineers with an eye toward reliability and price. It's not about favoring one resource over the other, or putting money in investor pockets. So when you read krappy articles claiming our grid is costly, rickety, and unreliable, they're just not true. We don't look to profit-seeking, or politically-motivated entities to plan a grid that puts the most money in someone's pockets, and we shouldn't start now. Creating a grid based on the need to meet political goals, or put money in corporate pockets, is creating a grid that's not efficient, affordable, or reliable.

Another krappy opinion piece claims that big companies are simply greenwashing when they purchase renewable energy credits and then claim to be environmentally responsible. I agree. But I do not agree with the suggested krappy solution of building new transmission lines so that the company can actually use the electricity associated with the RECs it purchases, as if electricity is nothing more than water in a pipe that can be directed to flow to a certain customer. The problem is the idea of RECs in the first place, not a lack of transmission. A REC represents the social and environmental attributes of electricity generated. A company can buy a REC, but that REC can be physically separated from the actual electricity produced. A generator may sell the actual electricity to another user, and then market the REC to someone else. That creates two revenue streams for the same electron. Essentially, it is selling something twice to two different buyers. It's a swindle of the highest order.

Options to solve that?1. Stop unbundling RECs from energy.2. Require companies to purchase transmission on the existing system to use the actual energy they purchase. There ain't no such thing as "cheap" environmental footprint, unless the public believes the greenwashing.

And then there's the unnecessary -- building new private transmission lines just for companies who want to purchase unbundled RECs from far away places. If we start down that path, with each company supporting its own private transmission line, we're soon going to find wires everywhere. The more wires and connections added, the more complicated and unreliable the grid becomes. There's also the problem of clearing a path for private transmission lines on private property owned by others. That's not a public use. That's not a public utility. Eminent domain cannot be used for such an endeavor.

No matter how many buzzwords these grid profiteers use, their ultimate goal is clear: to enable private companies to take from the public in order to increase their profits.

Congress should create legislative authority for siting major electricity transmission lines that follows the authority it has already granted to siting major gas lines.

In other words, let's let the federal government site and permit electric transmission to create a politically favored electric grid that everyone pays for. Fly over states and politically disconnected areas will be forced to sacrifice for the needs of the economically advantaged and politically connected. It's just not true that everyone benefits from every transmission line dreamed up to line corporate profits. New transmission levelizes prices between generation regions and consumption regions. While it may lower prices in consumption regions, it raises prices in formerly constrained generation regions, and the folks in the middle get nothing. Zilch. Zero. That problem cannot be solved by federal authority, the only thing federal authority may do is exacerbate it. Our current system that leaves siting and permitting authority to states is not broken. States do a much better job recognizing local priorities and concerns, and determining benefit to the state. Any delays come from badly conceived transmission ideas that do not provide benefits to localities, or seek to use the eminent domain power of the state for private transmission projects that do not provide public benefit.

Here's how to fix a long state permitting process: Stop trying to use eminent domain to force private infrastructure! I'm pretty sure Mr. Krapels is well aware that transmission that's sited underwater and underground on land of willing hosts can sail through the transmission permitting process in record time. Mr. Krapels also probably has customers lined up for the projects he undertakes, and doesn't rely on "build it and they will come" as a business plan.

Stop trying to "fix" what's not broken just to make private utility projects cheaper or faster. Instead, design better transmission projects with an eye toward making them acceptable to the communities they propose to impact. The grid operators and regulators we already have do a fine job of vetting transmission proposals and only ordering the building of what's actually needed. We don't need a bunch of profiteers creating their own private grid through our backyards.

The problem isn't us, it's you. All the glittering generalities in the world just can't fix that.

Who's looking out for your interests, little electricity consumer? Is there some government agency taking an interest in ensuring that the rates you pay and the services you receive are fair? Or are privately-funded, self-anointed "consumer interest" groups the ones working in your best interests? And what's the difference, anyhow?

Public Citizen claims to be a public interest consumer organization. Public Citizen's energy program has engaged over the years in a series of protests and interventions that spend more time whining about its lack of public funding that hinders its participation than actually saving real dollars for energy consumers. Public Citizen's most recent whine was highlighted in an article in RTO Insider this week. Public Interest Groups Cry Foul over Technical Conference, RTO Transparency links to a letter sent to RTO/ISOs and FERC complaining about being denied an opportunity to speak at a Technical Conference. Public Citizen also launches into its tired arguments that it should be paid to participate in energy regulatory proceedings and should receive voting rights at RTO/ISOs.

State Consumer Advocates already participate in RTO/ISO processes, and also represent consumer interests before FERC. State advocates are government employees with the sole mission of protecting consumer interests. They don't accept outside funding, and in fact currently operate on shoestring state budgets. These hardworking, underfunded advocates truly have the best interests of consumers in mind. How do I know this? Because I shared a counsel table with them during a 15-day FERC proceeding. I saw and heard a lot. Consumers saved nearly $20M in that case.

Public Citizen, on the other hand, is a private organization funded with grant money. Public Citizen's interests are the interests of their funders. When I looked at who funds Public Citizen, I found a list of individuals and foundations who donated buckets of money to the organization. While Public Citizen claims to represent thousands of consumer members (who remain nameless) and "low-income" citizen interests, regular folks aren't the ones donating obscene sums of money to Public Citizen. Under the category of "Foundations" there's plenty of private interest money to be had, such as the Energy Foundation. The Energy Foundation seems to have an interest in environmentalism. And, wouldn't you know it, Public Citizen's "Climate and Energy" program seems dedicated to clean energy (not necessarily saving consumers money on their energy bills). The Energy Foundation seems to be a conduit for billionaire environmentalists to hide while funneling money to private organizations eager to do their bidding. The Energy Foundation seems to have its fingerprints on a lot of "clean energy" initiatives, such as America's Power Plan (APP). APP was concocted several years ago to blow some smoke over the issue of using eminent domain to site energy facilities on private property. The Energy Foundation's assembled "experts" (including Farmer Jimmy Glotfelty of Clean Line Energy Partners) tried really hard to purport to know what landowners wanted in exchange for hosting energy infrastructure on private property. Except no landowners participated in their project. As a result, APP got things horribly wrong, such as this gem:

I want to site a new transmission line, but I am struggling to find the best way to work with private landowners who will be affected. Any suggestions?

Look to successful examples from around the country—like Montana Dakota Utilities and Clean Line Energy Partners. And consider new options to bring landowners to the table in a positive way—like Special Purpose Development Corporations or annual payments.

The first principle is to engage landowners early and often. Many utilities have found that holding landowner meetings earlier and more often than required can dramatically improve project efficiency. Innovative ideas include compensating private landowners via Special Purpose Development Corporations (which offer equity in the project’s success) or annual payments (which give landowners a stake in the life of the project). For example, Clean Line Energy Partners is now offering annual payments to landowners who will host a new DC transmission line intended to deliver 3.5 GW of power from Iowa to Chicago.

Of course, eminent domain often becomes an option once a transmission developer demonstrates that a new project is needed and the siting authority confirms that the project will serve the public interest. But cross-state transmission lines and third-party (non-utility) developers cannot always count on eminent domain. Regardless of whether eminent domain is an option, it should always be considered a last resort as there are many options to bring private land-owners to the table in a more positive way that can minimize friction in siting new lines. For example, Montana Dakota Utilities has not had to use eminent domain since 1983, mainly because the utilities consider themselves a part of the community, and have formed positive, trusting relationships with landowners.

For a more detailed treatment of these issues and further options for compensating private landowners, see pages 18-21 of Siting: Finding a Home for Renewable Energy and Transmission.

Successful examples from around the country? Clean Line Energy Partners? Hahahahahaa! Clean Line Energy Partners has had no success, and landowner opposition groups continue to fight them every step of the way. If you really want to site a transmission line, Clean Line could only be a realistic example of what not to do.

Well, now, how did I get so off track? "Clean energy" is like peeling an onion... there are so many layers when you drill down into where they get their funding. The Koch brothers would be proud.

So, let's get back on track here. Dueling consumer advocates. The state Consumer Advocates we already have are doing a good job. "Public Interest Organization" consumer advocates are an unnecessary addition to the fray, and may not have the interests of actual consumers in mind. This was demonstrated quite clearly in a recent FERC proceeding that pitted Public Citizen against the West Virginia Consumer Advocate. The subject was a PJM Interconnection rate case. Public Citizen intervened and whined about PJM's costs and said that consumer advocates aren't allowed to participate at PJM. West Virginia Consumer Advocate Jackie Roberts intervened and filed a comment disagreeing with Public Citizen's contentions about Consumer Advocate participation in PJM's budget. In fact, consumer advocates do participate in PJM's budget process, as well as being voting stakeholders in all PJM's processes. Not to be outdone, Public Citizen filed an answer, claiming that state consumer advocates don't represent Public Citizen members, and therefore there was also room at the consumer advocate table for PIOs like Public Citizen. I don't think anyone is stopping Public Citizen from participating in any regulatory or RTO process, just like any other PIO, such as Sierra Club, or NRDC. What Public Citizen likes to whine about is the fact that there is no public funding for its participation.

Talk about trying to board the gravy train... since when are any PIOs publicly funded by ratepayers through the federal regulatory process? And if they were, how many PIOs would belly up to the bar? The bottom line is that PIOs do their own thing according to the wishes of the people and foundations that fund them. That is not "public" interest. That's a private interest masquerading as a public servant. Nobody is minding the store to ensure that PIOs truly serve public interests. Therefore, they don't deserve public funding, or special concessions to allow them to have the same rights and privileges as state consumer advocates.

Federal regulators should think twice about opening Pandora's box with a pile of public funding offered to anyone who wants to call themselves a "public interest organization." The queue to score some public funding to advance private interests would probably wrap around the National Mall several times.

Maybe Public Citizen should concentrate on actually delivering some documented savings to electric consumers before whining that it needs public funding to protect consumer interests. The proof is in the pudding.

About the Author

Keryn Newman blogs here at StopPATH WV about energy issues, transmission policy, misguided regulation, our greedy energy companies and their corporate spin.In 2008, AEP & Allegheny Energy's PATH joint venture used their transmission line routing etch-a-sketch to draw a 765kV line across the street from her house. Oooops! And the rest is history.

AboutStopPATH Blog

StopPATH Blog began as a forum for information and opinion about the PATH transmission project. The PATH project was abandoned in 2012, however, this blog was not.

StopPATH Blog continues to bring you energy policy news and opinion from a consumer's point of view. If it's sometimes snarky and oftentimes irreverent, just remember that the truth isn't pretty. People come here because they want the truth, instead of the usual dreadful lies this industry continues to tell itself. If you keep reading, I'll keep writing.